Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation aspect is clear. The description adds value by specifying the operation targets a 'live' document and requires an editor access token, which are not in the annotations. It also hints at duplicate concerns, though it doesn't describe the exact behavior on duplicate IDs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise, informative sentences. It delivers the core purpose, a practical pre-check tip, and an authorization requirement with no filler or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's main purpose, the container concept, a useful pre-check workflow, and auth requirements. With no output schema and only moderate complexity, this is a solid but not exhaustive explanation. It could have described return values or duplicate-handling behavior, but it's adequate for an add operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the input schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about containers and suggests checking IDs, but does not elaborate on the meaning or format of parameters like agentId, userName, or action_explanation beyond what the schema provides. This aligns with the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'adds a new container (group/swimlane) to a live Trident document' and explains that containers 'visually group related nodes.' This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_node, add_connection, and add_annotation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly advises using get_document_summary to check existing container IDs before adding to avoid duplicates, which serves as an alternative-tool recommendation and a precondition. It also notes the requirement for a valid editor access token. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid adding or what to do if a duplicate exists, so it's not fully exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.